OMG!  You are more obnoxious than BW and FS combined!  I predict you definitely will not be on this website much longer.  People who show up only to post argumentative post after argumentative post fit the definition of troll, and are soon banned.

At no time while bringing up G onset rates have I been talking about the effect of G loads on airframes.  You and BW made some comments about pilots coping with high G loads, and about instantaneous turn rates and pointing the nose while avoiding high Gs.  I pointed out the fact that GLOC is not only caused by sustaining too many Gs, but can also be caused by sustaining an onset rate of Gs that is too high even though the maximum G level never gets high enough to itself cause GLOC.  You proceeded to bring up some useless observation about how the units of acceleration are m/s2, how the value of G varies slightly around the globe and cited some numbers ("variations ranging from, 0.26 to -0.27") without any units or explanation of what you thought they mean, and something about the airframe.  Even though it added nothing of value to a discussion of pilots blacking out under high Gs or under high G rates, I tried to play along and decipher what your reference to 0.26 to -0.27 was supposed to mean, so I offered a guess as to what the fluctuation of G is around the globe.  Then I tried to clarify that I was talking about how fast the load factor is changing and its effect on the pilot.  You responded with more crap about the merits of typing "G onset" v. "g onset", a table showing values for gravity around the globe, appear to still think I'm talking about something to do with the airframe, and tell me the units of G onset are m/s2.  I read the table out of curiousity, saw that the numbers you cited were percentages, explained what that meant in terms of my previous posts and what it seemed to me you might be saying in yours, and proceeded to explain for the third time that I was talking about the effect of total Gs on the pilot and the effect of rapidly increasing the Gs on the pilot, and how a high onset rate can in itself cause loss of consciousness even if the maximum G never gets to the level that in itself would cause black out.  Oh, and I also pointed out that G onset rate--which is what I've been talking about this whole time, and which you have been responding to this whole time--units would actually be m/s3, not m/s2.  You responded by dodging away from the whole diversonary subject you started regarding the variation in the value of G around the globe, and completely missing yet again the implications of the difference between m/s2 and m/s3; what part of m/s3 don't you understand?  Here's yet another hint:  G by itself is an acceleration, not a rate of acceleration, whereas G onset rate is a rate of acceleration, and G onset rate could also be expressed in units of G/s as well as m/s3, but not as m/s2 or G (not that I really care, as my point is about its effects on the pilot, not what units to use, but you seem insistent on talking about it).  Finally you clearly demonstrate you still are completely lost as to what I have explained at least three times (four times counting this post) using different words and terminology each time in an attempt to make it clear to you, and say something about roll rates and "g onset" during rolls of "up to 15 g"--whatever that's supposed to mean, as clearly it is not experiencing 15G in any axis of motion--and somehow you extrapolate that to mean something about load factor in pitch (slyly weaving in Seagull's contribution regarding Rafale's flight control system--thank you Seagull for being the only Frenchman I've seen on StrategyPage in over six years who is knowledgable *and* makes useful, positive contributions).  You obviously still don't realize that "G onset rate" is a well-known term used in human factors studies and has been heavily researched for decades.  You are truly a great big peter.

Boy:

  Please stop taking your standards for universal and keep your familiarities for yourself.

  I perfectly know what I am writing and don?t need to you put down everything you recently read about it to try to make up you know it the slightest, if you did, all you could be able to say about it is that you have too little data to assume half of what you are writing.

You and BW made some comments about pilots coping with high G loads, and about instantaneous turn rates and pointing the nose while avoiding high Gs

 I don't need to avoid anything apart for confrontational flamers who have for last resort spin and personal attacks including on others nationalities.

  The little picture I posted for your education is crystal clear and reflect realities that your limited theotrical knowledge can't foresee, I thought you'd be smart enough to step on it and try to comprehend this but you aren?t.

  Before reaching any number of g there are a few parameters any aircraft will have to meet, and these are clearly explained to you in three axis.

  Your theory about g onset is physically INVALID and cannot be expressed otherwise than as a pick value, other than that it have to be experienced practically because as this matrix shows there are too many unknown i.e. aerodynamic like mechanical.

  Something you apparently cannot possibly know since it takes some degree of practical experience for the most advanced for it to really hit a nerve, reason why flight engineers are.... Flyers and you, not experienced enough to cut it.

  What you demonstrate is that you are writing about a subject you know too little about.

 I pointed out the fact that GLOC is not only caused by sustaining too many Gs, but can also be caused by sustaining an onset rate of Gs that is too high even though the maximum G level never gets high enough to itself cause GLOC. 

  Again this theory of you proves to be totally impractical especially in the case

"Seagull       

 G Lock happens if you try to sustain high G turns for too long, but also if you ask for a very rapid G onset".

  True, but FCS are set for limits of up to 15 g because in reality in NO flight scenario this would actually occur.

 Not necessarily considering the Typhoon have a lower Structural Maximum Load than most, this value reflect it perfectly, maxiomum g onset values aren't the equivalent to sustained g, they are a value for constant acceleration but represents theorical pick values not physical, sustained values.

Not precisely, there are techniques to cope with high g values and pilots have long learnt to use them, the problem with high onset values is that often they have too little time to prepare for it.

 In many case they simply forget to, accident reports are full of such example, a pilot can black out a much lower g values than 9.

Perhaps so but there is a difference between theories, laboratory conditions and combat conditions.

 What most of you doesn't realize is that the physiologic resistance to g of pilot is reduced by their level of stress and fatigue.

 Tyhoon g onset is ALSO a theorical pick value which would probably never been meet for as many reasons as there are topics in the maneuverability matrix Transient and Functional chapters.

In short, taken in isolation it only can be given as an indication of a theorical pick value.

To finish, you keep mentioning the example of the Rafale D which is a two seater, this means that the WSO will often have no idea what the pilot will do next expecially in combat, and face the very problem I have mentioned, lack of time to prepare himself for the maneuver.